Social Policy - International

Gornick, Janet C. and Marcia K. Meyers. Chapter 9 ("Developing
Earner-Carer Policies in the United States") from Families That Work:
Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. Russell Sage.

Gornick and Meyers examined policies in other industrialized countries and concluded "that government policies that support parents in their earning and caring roles are institutionally and economically feasible." They examine some of the claims (or excuses) concerning why Americans feel they cannot institute similar supportive policies. The extent of racial, ethnic, and national diversity in the U.S. is one thing that differs greatly from other industrialized countries. Therefore, excuse #1 is "The United States is too diverse to support inclusive policies." One of the most consistent features of European models of policies is inclusiveness - and the racism in the U.S. makes this difficult. When Americans feel that a policy is benefitting minorities or immigrants, there is likely to be resistance. However, the authors do not believe that this is an insurmountable barrier to creating supportive policies. Policies that support dual-earning families with children to care for are not considered "welfare" in the American sense. The authors point out, "policies that support parents in their dual roles are deeply consonant with the American values of personal responsibility to both paid work and the family." They point to the success of social security benefits as an example. While the homogeneity of many European countries does help their programs, the authors explain that many European countries also have high rates of immigration and this does not prevent their inclusive policies. The rise of immigration has caused political strain for some European countries, but, as Gornick explains, "the basic structures and functions of the social welfare states remains strong in the face of growing population diversity in part because their inclusive structures create broad political support."

The next American issue to be dealt with is our strong beliefs in individual choice. In the area of family policy, American parents often prefer to make their own choices and solve work-family issues in ways that are functional for their families personally, rather than overarching structural solutions. Parents want to be free to choose the type of care their children receive. My personal belief is that parents often fail to recognize that most work-family policies will simply offer more options for parents and not necessarily force them to use any particular solution. Gornick points out that European policies do allow parents to tailor the options to their individual preferences and what works for their families. Gornick also makes an excellent point in her explanation of the actual constraints of American "choice." The "choice" Americans do have is likely to be severely constrained by economic and other circumstances. As a result, Americans have limited options and do not necessarily retain the "choice" they would hope to have.

The prevalence of single parenthood in the U.S. introduces another issue because the needs of single parents are so unique. Some argue that it is impossible to implement work-family policies that will address the needs of both two parent and single parent families, but Gornick points out that "the European experience suggests otherwise." She points out some of the weaknesses of our current welfare system and the fact that welfare reform has failed to address quality of life issues with the American poor. She explains that the fact that Europeans provide basic supports - such as healthcare and affordable childcare - makes it a lot easier to aid the poor because at least their basic needs are already being met.

The argument that social programs have unintended consequences for fertility cannot be supported by any evidence. Americans are, of course, concerned that helping single parent families will undermine the nuclear family structure and that birthrates will raise and marriage rates fall.

Finally, the state-based system rather than national system that the U.S. operates on impedes the implementation of federal policies. However, there are ways of incorporating state autonomy with federal guidelines and funds to allocate towards work-family policies.

I believe that the primary block to generous work-family policy in the U.S. is the American mindset and the belief that family issues are personal and not societal. Rugged individualism is the prevailing mentality and people do not want to accept any form of "help," "charity," or aid of any kind. Until this mentality can be broken down in favor of practical solutions to nationwide issues, we will not see any real change.

Gornick, Janet C., and Marcia K. Meyers. 2008. "Creating Gender
Egalitarian Societies: An Agenda for Reform." Politics and Society
36:313-349.

In this article, Gornick and Meyers provide an outline for a different structure of society that allows for parents to be successfully employed as well as successful parents who are given enough time to spend with their children and to adequately care for children. Through work-family policy changes in the areas of family leave, working-time regulations, and provisions for early childhood care and education, the authors attempt to present a new model of the working family.

Their "Real Utopia" of the "dual-earner/dual-caregiver" system is a very gender equal system, with women and men expected to work as well as provide care equally. The authors describe how the problems of work-family balance have been increasing over the years, particularly with the increasing divorce rate and the rise of single-parent families, along with the increasing numbers of women entering the workforce and dual-earner families becoming the norm. While the problem has been increasing, social policy to address these issues has been incomplete and has been lagging behind. This has created essentially a crisis for American families. Additionally, men have not picked up the slack as much as necessary and many have stubbornly tried to conform to breadwinner roles where this system no longer exists or is functional. Parents' time crunch has also been impacting children. Women are often not able to sufficiently breastfeed their children and school-age children with parents with exorbitant work hours show more developmental issues, poorer academic performance, and more behavioral issues.

The authors suggest a system in which the state will support both parental and nonparental care of children - allowing parents the choice and "socializing the costs of caring for children and equalizing access to quality care across families of different means." State participation is key, as the authors explain, "the earner-caregiver society requires that the state take an active role in protecting parents' rights to have time for caregiving without undue economic sacrifice and in assuring that families have access to affordable, high-quality substitute child care." As far as the family leave piece, the authors propose that each parent be given six months of fully paid leave following childbirth or the adoption of a child. They propose that this leave be flexible and can be taken in increments over a period of several years as it is convenient for the parents. Both mother and father have the same leave and men are encouraged to take leave and be involved with their children. The regulation of working time would include a change in the standard workweek and mandatory minimums as far as paid days off, etc. The authors suggest a standard workweek of 35 to 39 hours, which is already the number of hours in place for many European countries. Americans are known to work upwards of 50 hours per week, with the "standard" workweek being 40 hours. The authors also advocate protections against compulsory overtime and other employer abuses. Finally, public financing of early childhood care and education that is high-quality is necessary to this system. This care must be available in the same high level of quality to all children regardless of socioeconomic status. Parents should also be given choices as far as childcare and have childcare available through multiple venues. Additionally, childcare hours would be matched with parents' work hours. The authors go on to discuss the ways in which similar social policies operate in other countries.

Gornick is right in her statement that this idea is extremely utopian. The strong emphasis on gender equality is refreshing, but also perhaps not realistic. Additionally, many Americans would be uncomfortable with the government being involved so directly in their lives - regulating their work habits and childcare options, etc. Perhaps if there were more state control people would feel better about it, but any functional work-family policies will require a lot of support from Americans in order to pass through Congress. Unfortunately, it seems that at this time we do not have that strong platform of support. However, through spreading awareness and ideas about programs such as these, we have the potential to bring people together under an issue that impacts most of us at some point in our lives.

Kelly, Erin. 2006. "Work-Family Policies: The United States in
International Perspective." In M. Pitt-Catsouphes, E.E. Kossek and S.
Sweet (eds.), The Work and Family Handbook. Lawrence Erlbaum.

In this article, Kelly makes an important connection between public work-family policies in the U.S. and specific employers' work-family policies. Unsurprisingly, she finds that those who fare well in the market system also fare far better in work-family options. Those involved in professional careers tend to have more paid days off, more generous family leave, and more flexibility in their schedules to respond to family needs. Those with lower paid jobs tend to have stricter schedules, fewer options as far as work-family policy, and in general have more trouble and less support when it comes to resolving work-family conflicts. Unfortunately, she also finds that among those who are offered these options through their employers, many are afraid to take advantage of them for fear of compromising their career paths. Americans never want to be viewed as not dedicated enough to their work and commitment to work is a beneficial quality in the eyes of employers. Kelly cites the study we read last week concerning the wage penalty for mothers who take advantage of work-family policies in their workplaces. All of this creates substantial roadblocks for improvements in American public policy. Those who are offered policies through their workplace may not feel the need to lobby for national changes because these options are available to them (whether or not they actually feel comfortable taking advantage of them is another story) and those who do not have these options available through their employers are likely to lack the time, resources, and clout to advocate for their needs. This places the U.S. in somewhat of a deadlocked position. We do need work-family policies, but we do not have enough of the right people fighting for them.

Her comparison to international policies was very shocking. Our lack of resources for our children is truly upsetting. As I have maintained in past responses, it is difficult to translate European policy into the American context because of our vastly different set of ideologies. Our country was based on people trying to break free and start on their own. The independent mindsets of our founding fathers have persisted through the generations and impact our though processes today. We can only hope that future generations will be more open to change rather than afraid of "socialism" or of "too much" governmental intervention.

Clawson, Dan and Naomi Gerstel. 2002. "Caring For Young Children: What
the U.S. Can Learn from Some European Examples." Contexts, v. 4: pp. 28-35.

In this excellent article, Clawson asks some important questions concerning childcare, the focus of childcare (educational versus free play), and the national values of individual countries. In his comparison of U.S. childcare and education systems versus the French system, he brings to light some series failings on the part of the U.S. The French early childcare system is free, optional, and available to all children from age 3 to age 6. The focus of these programs is education and the teachers all have masters degrees. Good food is provided and the kids learn and play in a supportive and safe environment. The adult-child ratio is definitely greater than private childcare arrangements, but this affords children an opportunity to develop social skills and to learn to play well and share with others. While the French system is certainly more expensive, the government takes on the cost and it is free to parents - whereas Americans spend roughly the same amount per child (around $5,000) but the cost falls directly to the parents. France spends about 1% of its GDP on these programs. If the U.S. were to do the same, we would have about $100 billion per year to devote to our children. The French model would also fit the U.S. priority of education. The U.S. government would be more likely to spend money on such programs if the goals were clearly educationally based rather than childcare based - and the American public would probably be more approving, considering we already have a public school system.

The Danish system places more of an emphasis on children's play and "being a kid." Clawson suggests that this model might be appealing to certain U.S. parents who would prefer to allow their child to play and to have a childhood. He explains that particularly families of color might value this form of childcare. Danish parents also contribute about 1/5 of the cost of this program, and it is only available to working parents - as its focus is childcare and not education. I could see Americans liking a program like this, but I am not sure it is as practical as the French program for the U.S. simply because I do not see Americans being as supportive of something that is simply blatant, publicly funded childcare.

European models tend to have more of a focus on child-child interaction rather than child-adult interaction. U.S. parents seem to prefer a one-on-one child to adult caretaking model - essentially a mother substitute model. European countries emphasize the benefits of children working and playing together and resolving conflicts on their own. I would agree with the European perspective here, because social skills are one of the most important developmental aspects for children and will greatly increase their later successes.

With the American valuing of the mothering model, you would expect mothers to have generous leaves in order to care for children, which is simply not the case. All European countries have far more comprehensive and generous leave plans for parents than the U.S.

Additionally, Americans are chronically overworked. On average, Americans put in 300 more hours per year than their French counterparts, and 400 more hours per year than the Swedish. That difference in the number of work hours is absolutely crazy and says a lot about American values.

The low quality of care in the U.S., the lack of governmental support, and the value placed on intensive mothering all contribute to the chronic care crisis in America. The author points out that while implementing some of these policies might be expensive in the short run, valuing our children will be more beneficial in the long run, and cheaper as well when you take into account potential declines in crime, juvenile programs, etc.

Overall, the U.S. has a fragmented and ineffective system of childcare. We need to rethink our approach to childcare issues and examine foreign systems that have been successful in order to come up with a more effective plan that will aid U.S. families.